Archives

tags

Recently prominent youtuber gamer Jontron had a debate on youtuber Destiny’s channel on matters of immigration. The debate was initiated after Jontron tweeted a defense of the controversial tweet Rep. Steve King put out recently where he said, “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies”.

Many news publications put out articles discussing the views that Jontron expressed in the debate, the common narrative being that he was racist, due to his statement that mass immigration from the third world was a negative thing. He made several points pertaining to immigrant communities in the US as well as Europe.

The first of these articles was from Gizmodo, which went to explain that Jontron had spent the whole interview “vilifying immigrants as lazy criminals” which was actually not anywhere near what he said. Gizmodo got this from his talking about the crime statistics in these communities, and the fact that some of these immigrants are benefiting and taking advantage of the welfare; both of which he discussed in different parts of the discussion. The article goes on to mention a quote from Jontron when he said that immigration would be fine if these immigrants assimilated- “‘if they assimilated they would enter the gene pool eventually.’ One imagines Mengele would be proud”. But entering a gene pool of a certain population is literally what happens when a smaller group comes into an area with a larger population, not a fucking Nazi sentiment Gizmodo.

This narrative spread to more prominent news sources, such as when Time released an article later in the week. Time discussed things Jontron said concerning tribalism/identity politics, which the original Gizmodo article painted as him advocating for white racial tribalism, when in fact he was talking about those kinds of opinions that are spread around in the left. And then of course they showed several ‘disappointed fans’ reactions, lamenting at all the ‘racism’.

There is a simple reason to why this debate sparked this kind of media response. The host Destiny, performed far better in the debate. He was able to center the conversation of identity politics around white people while ignoring the context of leftist identity politics Jontron was referencing; and he usually berated any analogy Jontron tried to make between American and European immigration because they are different. This representation of Jontron as the racist that is conflated with nazis is the perfect one to be passed around in the media, sparking a whole new shitstorm about the innocuous youtube gamer, just like they did with Pewdiepie.

Recently the Toronto Sun published an article reporting on how an instructor at Ryerson university had told a student that they should disregard the sources that they used in their paper, and instead look at feminist literature and sources. The paper in question purported that the gender wage gap is a myth. The professor stated in an email to the student that their assertion was flat out wrong, and went on to ‘explain’ the reality of the issue.

Tweet that brought attention to the issue.

Attention was brought to the situation when youtuber MyNameIsJosephine tweeted the professors email to the student, who is Josephine’s sister. Josephine had said that it was her who suggested to her sister to write the paper about the wage gap, and called out the professor for the way she handled the issue.

In the email to the student the professor flat-out told her that her stance for the paper was wrong, then going not to provide with possible counterpoints, but to push her own opinion saying , “The way the wage gap works largely today is through the glass ceiling”.

After providing the student with the pro-feminist stance and suggesting feminist sources to back it up, the professor stated, “Do NOT use business sources. They blame women. The reality is patriarchy”. She might as well have said: ‘do not use alternative sources, they do not support my narrative, my narrative is reality’. And on top of this, in the description for the paper assignment, the professor has barred official sources such as Statistics Canada, the Government of Canada website, and dictionary references. This professor of Ryerson is clearly pushing an agenda, demanding that only one point of view be argued as correct, and disavowing any sources that contradict that point of view. Of course if the professor limits the sources that the students can draw from for research, they will be bound to support the only point of view that these sources do.

The Telegraph have recently reported on language inclusive guidelines that have been in place in Cardiff Metropolitan University for the past couple years. The guidelines outline a number of phrases that could supposedly be interpreted as offensive. Such phrases included ‘fore-fathers’, ‘mankind’, ‘right-hand man’, and ‘sportsmanship, among a list of 34 words and phrases. The reason Cardiff gave for these guidelines was to embrace cultural diversity through the the new language restrictions.

This university is essentially exerting authoritarian control over all the people in its community, backed up with the threat of disciplinary action for those that oppose it. Regardless of what type of ‘inclusive’ behavior this is supposed to help usher in or promote, it is without a doubt a suppression of speech, not specifically for ideas being spread, but for the words people use. It is the university dictating the speech that is ‘wrong think’ and what should be viewed as the right way to speak. This goes even further because the students are told that that the ‘stereotyping’ language that has been banned “denies peoples individuality” and that by using the institution approved speech they should try to, “promote an atmosphere in which all students feel valued”.

The kind of language that is used is indicative of the campus’s moral policing. By refusing to cooperate with the policy, students deny peoples individuality(bad), so they should ACTIVELY try to ‘promote a space where people feel valued'(good). And by policing in this way, they can silence the students and faculty by guilting or punishing anyone of them that would step forward to oppose this policy.

The first few months of 2017 have given the internet a lot to mull over; one question in particular: ‘is it okay to punch Nazis’. This first started being passed around when prominent alt-right figure Richard Spencer was punched in the face by a masked protester at the Trump inauguration day protests that occurred in Washington DC. Since then an undeniably large contingent of people have postulated that this assault, as well as others like it, are justified because those being assaulted are ‘Nazis’ and spread hate.

To drain the swamp, it is necessary to state that Spencer is not a nazi/neo-nazi, although he is a white nationalist, that supports identity politics specifically between members of the white race. For the vast majority of people, myself included, these are stupid and ridiculous positions to hold, and can be arguably labeled racist without deviation from the facts. However, no matter how detestable an opinion someone espouses, it is never okay to respond with physical violence, unless it is in self defense in response to violence initiated by them(actual physical violence, not “hate speech”). Such a thing would be to violate freedom of speech, one of the most important western values that protects all individuals right freely express themselves without fear of being harmed.

This pattern of justified violence against ‘harmful opinions’ continued in February, when riots broke out on UC Berkeley campus in response to Milo Yiannopoulos coming to speak at the campus to spread his ‘hate speech’. Another instance of violence that was initiated by Black Bloc and Antifa protesters. Like other violent protests, it caused damage to the surrounding neighborhood, as well as instances of assault against pro-Milo, or pro-Trump individuals.

This staple tactic of violent protest has been very prevalent in 2017 so far, going hand in hand with the moral justification of said violence. Say someone says one should not punch Nazi’s, well why wouldn’t you want to punch them? Nazi’s are bad, and you don’t want to cause them harm? So your supporting Nazi’s. Berkeley associate professor Deborah Blocker commented on the riots, stating that the Black Bloc techniques were effectively used to cause just enough damage to the area to prevent Milo from coming. Both of these attitudes justify the violence caused in these instances, incited by nothing more than thought crimes.

People need to understand that violence is not an acceptable response to a difference in opinion. No matter how personally offensive one may find something, that does not give them the right to cause bodily harm to the ones committing this offense. The attitudes of many people who endorse such acts of violent protest are alarming and should be treated as such, because they are suggesting the creation of moralistic Fascism, in order justifiably silence those who disagree with them.

Throughout this month, Elizabethtown college has been the source of controversy, ever since the College Democrats on campus announced that they would be wearing white puzzle piece pins, in order to remind them all of white privilege, and the discussion about it they say is needed on the campus. The college democrats stated in a Facebook post that this was inspired by ECLA pastor Barb Girod who wore a pin herself for a year to “force herself to think about her white privilege”.

The announcement facebook post.

Like the pastor, the students stated that the goal of this project was to force the students to focus and think about their ‘white privilege’, “This project, along with ours, forces everybody to think about racial issues people face daily”. The students also mentioned that although they received criticism for the campaign, it was an ‘important’ to start this conversation on race, especially since Elizabethtown is a white majority institution.

I can’t actually think of any benefits of a campaign that goes around and tells students to focus on something completely out of their control for an arbitrary reason, especially since there didn’t seem to be any ‘acts or environment of racism’ that inspired this campaign. Essentially their reason is, white privilege exists, and there are so many white people there.

Elizabethtown College President Carl Strikwerda talked about the campaign in an interview with LNP. He stated that the ongoing discussion of race was extremely important at Elizabethtown, and movements such as these are essential for the student body. When asked if he thought the campaign invited white guilt he said, I don’t like the concept of ‘white guilt’ because race is not the only way in which people have faced obstacles. It’s not very productive to encourage the notion of white guilt. It doesn’t help very much in terms of understanding why race relations are difficult”.

President Carl Strikwerda

The problem I have with this campaign is that there is nothing prompting it. Since the students have arbitrarily started to wear these pins to remind themselves of their white privilege for no other reason than they believe they have it. There is not a point to the campaign, except to constantly berate themselves on how their ‘whiteness’ causes the world to be shitty for others. No matter what the President of the college says about white guilt, having a constant message directed at them saying that they are inherently well off, is most likely going to breed some guilty feelings sometimes, which is most likely why the students started campaigning in the first place.

The Chicago Tribune describes these sensitivity readers as, “Sensitivity reader” is a person who, for a small fee, will provide feedback about the book based on self-ascribed areas of expertise like “dealing with terminal illness,” “racial dynamics in Muslim communities” or “transgender issues”. The publishers that employ these sensitivity readers do so in hopes to avoid the negative backlash from the easily triggered.

For authors dealing with ‘marginalized’ groups in their works of fiction, it may seem somewhat necessary to take the extra step and make sure no one is ever offended by their work. Author Susan Dennard for instance hired a transgender fan of hers to review her transgender character in her new book, to make sure that it was accurate. She expressed her worries on the subject she was writing about, “I was nervous to write a character like this to begin with, because what if I get it wrong? I could do some major damage.”

These authors often consider what the implications could be if they write content that some people may consider offensive, since those people may go out and make a fuss about it, and the author too. Publisher Lee & Low Book has also co-opted a policy to use sensitivity readers for the content that they approve of.

These days, calling random people/things racist and sexist pop up for arbitrary reasons everywhere. The latest example of this happening is when British retailer Primark pulled thousands of Walking Dead t-shirts from its inventory after a Minister complained that the phrase on the shirt was racist.

The shirt accused of racism

The shirt shows Negan, the main antagonist of the current season of The Walking Dead, with his signature baseball bat and the words, “eeny meeny miny moe”, which became a sort of catchphrase for the the character in the marketing of season 7 of the series.

Lucraft said that, “‘This image relates directly to the practice of assaulting black people in America”, as well as, “It is directly threatening of a racist assault, and if I were black and were faced by a wearer I would know just where I stood”. Lucroft is flat out saying that this t-shirt that has absolutely nothing to the ‘historical context’ of the eeny meeny miny rhyme, and is directly about this specific TV show character with his specific catchphrase, is actively threatening to harm black people.

Lucraft wrote a letter to Primark chief executive Paul Marchant asking him to remove the t-shirt, and Marchant promptly did so, apologizing for the insult that the t-shirt might have unintentionally caused to anyone.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, the actor who plays Negan in the series ridiculed Primark’s decision to recall the shirts, saying that ‘people are so stupid’ is response to the idea that the shirt was racist, which by the way makes far more sense than anything Lucraft has said.

Many colleges are becoming more politically correct now day’s, and seek to represent an air of ‘Social Justice’. Earlier this month a student at the University of Minnesota who worked as a CA(community adviser), and despite being an honors student, juggling a second job at Coffman Memorial Student Union, and participating as Lietenant Governor of six “Circle K” clubs (statewide volunteering), was not rehired by the HRL (The Department of Housing and Residential life) because she did not display proper attitudes toward social justice.

While the performance review rated Justine highly in categories that rely on her engaging in the community and protecting the community guidelines for all of the students, where as the areas she scores lower on include requirements such as, define terms: social justice-power-privilege, promoting the HRL’s social media accounts, and telling stories on how to use one’s own ‘inner strength’.

Justine was also supposed to read the HRL Diversity and Social Justice training manual, which contains many youtube videos relating to social justice issues, as well as defining social justice terminology such as privilege and oppression, oppression said to occur at the ‘macro’ level, a stream of ‘systems’ like racism, sexism, classism and ableism, which they describe to affect specific groups, going beyond individuals. There was also other introductory material for the CA’s that linked them to sites like everyday feminism, MTV decoded, and Buzzfeed, all sites that are in very strong support of the social justice movement

Justine’s evaluation was reviewed by Sean Smallwood, the residence director at her hall, who stated that, “Justine struggles with ambiguity and practicing empathy with her peers. At times this is a barrier to further growth around diversity and social justice”. So part of the ‘problem’ that led to her not being rehired, was that she was open to more than one point of view, on the issues of diversity and social justice, which Smallwood and the institution obviously didn’t approve of.

The residence hall Justine worked in

This is an example of a honors performing model student, that does not get the job they have already been doing well, purely for ideological reasons. The social justice narrative spreading in universities like these may manifest differently in different institutions, such as the famous protests from Mizzou, or the more recent and violent Berkely riots, where the belief that they hold the right and ‘just’ opinion makes students try and ban or silence opposing ones. The performance of Justine and others like her at their jobs is irrelevant to the sjw ideologues, they simply care about whether or not the person in question is capitulating to the ideas that social justice propagates.

On February 20th, as people began to gather in the neighborhood Stockholm when a suspect was being arrested in the suburb of Rinkeby. According to the police report, people began throwing rocks, one of which hit a police officer in the arm. From there the police called in several patrols to help break up the crowd, firing in the air for affect; no people are reported to have been shot, and no gun wounds in the area have been reported.

Fires set later in riots

Somewhat later in the evening, several cars were reported to have been set on fire in the area, and some shops were looted. Although the riots occurred throughout the day, Stockholm police reported to have calmed the area by midnight, when the riots ended.

This was no the first time that Stockholm has had riots such as this, a series of them in 2013, leading to fires set in the city in schools and a police station. Those riots were originally believed to have started when the police killed a 69-year old man wielding a machete.

Burned cars in the Stockholm riot

The recent riots also gained some attention to President Donald Trumps recent comments on, ‘what happened in Sweden last night‘ where he referenced a night where nothing happened; It was later revealed that he was referring to a segment on Fox news discussed by Tucker Carlson. Many are noting it ironic that actual riots break out in Sweden the day after the President made such claims, and many called him out on it.

Recently, students at UC San Diego have rallied to protest the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, from coming to speak at their commencement ceremony in June. The Dalai Lama has been campaigning to increase Tibet’s independence, while the government of China considers it to be a province of China. The Dalai Lama has been in exile from China(including Tibet) since 1959, 9 years after China under the dictator Mao Zedong occupied Tibet.

The 14th Dalai Lama

The students protested him by saying that his presence on campus would be disturbing as an oppressive figure. Why oppressive? Well a large portion of Chinese students have taken a personal offence to his invitation, considering him as a person who is threatening to divide a united China. This was the response to his stance on trying to gain more political Independence from China. After the announcement of his invitation the Chinese Students and Scholars(CSAS) association issued a note on WeChat saying they had contacted the Chinese Consulate about the issue.

The CSAS statement

The reason the CSAS gives that the Dalai Lama should not be allowed to speak is that it apparently undermines the spirit of respect tolerance and equality, as well getting the Chinese students all hung up about engaging in their academics. These ideas were spread by several students at the University on social media, some saying that it is hypocritical of the University to invite this ‘oppressor’ because of their efforts to create non-racist, non-sexist community.

All these reactions to the Dalai Lama being invited to speak at UC San Diego are indicative of the sentiments of censorship being spread in this campus. It is enough for the Chinese students to feel a bit put out because the man is fighting for more political independence for his homeland after it was occupied, for students to demand that he not even be allowed to show up. The language that these students use is also very telling, using words like tolerance and equality, while advocating to silence the Dalai Lama for holding an opinion different from their own that made them feel uncomfortable. This is ridiculous, just as it is with the other instances in american universities where the students protest guest speakers because they don’t want to hear the opinions they espouse.